4 ms·

No offence to the developer, but isn't this like propaganda? I mean you're not just choosing to only see the best in world, but you're letting someone else defi

by gitgud 8y ago

No offence to the developer, but isn't this like propaganda? I mean you're not just choosing to only see the best in world, but you're letting someone else define what is the best (or not depressing). Just seems a little weird to me...

conradk 8y ago
That's the case with any newspaper though, isn't it? We should always cross-check and verify, listen to multiple opinions and look at a variety of sources if possible.
- snaky 8y ago
  The main purpose of newspapers used to be exactly an opposite. You choose the particular newspaper, by editorial board views closest to yours, and just get an information. You don't have to cross-check everything - that's what you pay for subscribing to newspaper. You outsource the job to the editors.
  - conradk 8y ago
    The part "by editorial board views closest to yours" says it all. All newspapers have views. They choose what is "good" or "bad" based on their views. That's why cross-checking is essential.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
krona 8y ago
Just seems a little weird to me... Isn't this how most curated sources of information, from newspapers to scientific journals, work?
- gitgud 8y ago
  True, I guess this source is a least transparent about what kind of content they are promoting
  - snaky 8y ago
    Less transparent comparing to MSNBC or FoxNews?
    - cyphar 8y ago
      I imagine they meant to say "at least" transparent and just typo'd it. Otherwise the rest of their comment makes little sense.
      - gitgud 8y ago
        Yep, it was a typo
ksdale 8y ago
This view assumes that news that cultivates conflict and dwells on catastrophe is the natural way of things. Every news source chooses what to cover, and most of them currently choose in a manner to maximize viewership. It's important to know that bad things are happening in the world, but there's a big difference between hearing that a number of murders happened and reading an hour long story about each individual murder. Whenever we stay with the in-laws and watch a lot of local news, I am always blown away both by how negative it is, and how uninformative it is. I think we could replace a lot of news with news from 10 years ago and no one would ever know the difference because almost none of the news affects them personally, but they carry around anxiety with them constantly because they learned implicitly from the news that the world is a scary place. That seems at least as much like propaganda as this.

by gitgud 8y ago

conradk 8y ago

That's the case with any newspaper though, isn't it? We should always cross-check and verify, listen to multiple opinions and look at a variety of sources if possible.

snaky 8y ago
The main purpose of newspapers used to be exactly an opposite. You choose the particular newspaper, by editorial board views closest to yours, and just get an information. You don't have to cross-check everything - that's what you pay for subscribing to newspaper. You outsource the job to the editors.
- conradk 8y ago
  The part "by editorial board views closest to yours" says it all. All newspapers have views. They choose what is "good" or "bad" based on their views. That's why cross-checking is essential.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

krona 8y ago

Just seems a little weird to me... Isn't this how most curated sources of information, from newspapers to scientific journals, work?

gitgud 8y ago
True, I guess this source is a least transparent about what kind of content they are promoting
- snaky 8y ago
  Less transparent comparing to MSNBC or FoxNews?
  - cyphar 8y ago
    I imagine they meant to say "at least" transparent and just typo'd it. Otherwise the rest of their comment makes little sense.
    - gitgud 8y ago
      Yep, it was a typo

ksdale 8y ago

This view assumes that news that cultivates conflict and dwells on catastrophe is the natural way of things. Every news source chooses what to cover, and most of them currently choose in a manner to maximize viewership. It's important to know that bad things are happening in the world, but there's a big difference between hearing that a number of murders happened and reading an hour long story about each individual murder. Whenever we stay with the in-laws and watch a lot of local news, I am always blown away both by how negative it is, and how uninformative it is. I think we could replace a lot of news with news from 10 years ago and no one would ever know the difference because almost none of the news affects them personally, but they carry around anxiety with them constantly because they learned implicitly from the news that the world is a scary place. That seems at least as much like propaganda as this.